Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

How Cochrane behaved to the Landing Party of the 1701 Enterprise is not necessarily an indication of a timeline problem. Between the year between FC and Metamorphosis, he did seem to clean up his act(if you believe what history wrote about him and that first ST:Enterprise Episode) and with many years of interfacing with the Companion, there is no telling what it did to some of his memories and personality.

Thanks for the info, Luther Sloan. I see where you're coming from, but I'm afraid I don't agree with your conclusions

KD:

It's the basic "Cause and Effect" theory within Temporal Mechanics. If I do "Action A" it will result in "Option B". If I go back in time and tell an important person within history of the future he is going to have and the impact that he has made along with other future advancements: do you think there wouldn't be a change (when I got back to my own time)?

Well, to assume that there wouldn't be a change when you got back would be ludicrous. That important person in history will forever be changed by my influence (if that person believed I was from the future). Essentially, that person's whole perception would change because of it. The person would make different choices or decisions as a result. Thus changing history. And it would be a noticeable change because you influenced someone who was already important within Earth's history.

Since it's been asked for by Warped9, Vonstadt and others, here's some trivial "proof" that Spock Prime is the Spock from TOS:

His working with the Romulans (seemingly in the open now) is a continuation of his work in TNG "Unification", and the improved Federation/Romulan relations at the end of "Nemesis".

He repeated the line "I have been and always shall be your friend" from Wrath of Khan.

"Something I learned from an old friend" is reference to the repeated time-travels during TOS and the TOS movies.

His knowledge of Transwarp Beaming suggests he knew the ressurected Scotty from TNG "Relics". It's likely Scotty finally perfected his Transwarp beaming formula after his return owing to the obvious fact it was never used during TOS or TNG.

There are realities that are not just similar, but almost identical to one another (Please read below).

Of course you'll all say "similar things happend to an alternate Old Spock". Same goes for every episode of Star Trek ever made.

Data says in TNG's "Parallels" that there are infinite number of possible outcomes in other parallel universes. This suggests that there are other parallel realities (or time lines) that almost identical or almost indistinguishable to one another (not just similar).

__________________________________________________ ___

DATA
I believe the quantum fissure we
discovered is a fixed point across
the space-time continuum -- a
"keyhole" that intersects many
different quantum realities.

TROI
What do you mean by "quantum
realities"?

DATA
For any event, there is an
infinite number of possible
outcomes. Our choices determine
which outcome will follow. But
there is a theory in quantum
physics that all possibilities
that could happen do happen in
alternate quantum realities.

For instance, in a different
quantum reality, Captain Riker may
have chosen to sit at the other
end of the table. While in
another reality, the Captain may
be standing.

BEVERLY

So at this moment, there are an
infinite number of Enterprises...
and an infinite number of Doctor
Crushers having this discussion.

DATA
Yes. Although on some of those
Enterprises, there may not be a
Doctor Crusher...

WORF
And somehow I have been shifting
from one reality to another...

DATA
That is correct.

__________________________________________________ __

In addition: TOS's "Metamorphosis" shows a young Cochrane who doesn't seem to think it is coincidence that he runs into another crew from a starship named "Enterprise", either. This suggests that we are looking at a time line that has not altered by the events of we see in the film First Contact yet.

However, as a result of the movie First Contact: We see a small handful of clear examples that the time travel event within the film has effected the time stream now (VOY's Year of Hell, VOY's Relativity, ENT's Regeneration). This would suggest that things have indeed changed within the time line.

Furthermore, lets say you believe that the time travel incident in First Contact was the original time line that was meant to be there all along. Well, the scene where we see a Borg like Earth when the Enterprise was following the Borg sphere back in time suggests that time lines can be briefly created and then changed in an instant. So the theory that a temporal incursion was always there to begin with is not really make all that much sense.

As for Time Lines D and E (Enterprise and TAS): Well, those are pretty self evident that they are not even remotely similar to the Prime Time Line (Versions l or ll).

You're interpreting everything after First Contact and the others as changed timelines when the intent is that they were predestination paradoxes. There obviously had to be an original timeline prior to the various loops beginning, but IMO we never saw it. We've had proof that the Enterprise timeline was changed by at least two big events ("Shockwave" and the Xindi attack), but the way I see it nowadays, TOS, TNG and the rest are all the result of this tampering.

Don't get me wrong, you can believe what you want and there is loads of evidence to support your claims. Owing to the way the multiverse theory works you could argue an episode takes place in an alternate universe where the only difference is that Uhura applied her socks left-first instead of right-first today. Where do you draw the line between continuity errors and alternate universes?

I just take a more relaxed view of continuity gaffs, broken reverse-continuity and the rest.

By the same token, the Spock of TOS is not the Spock of the movie. Just because Nimoy happened to be the actor playing him doesn't make the 2009 film any more authoritative with regard to the events and characters of TOS than the series Enterprise was. TOS was a complete work in 1969. That has not changed.
Abrams and Nimoy really have nothing to say about it.

Opinion.

Might want to consult the OED on that one. You're confused.

Confused how? What you wrote is your opinion, since it's not shared by the people who made the film. Being condescending by telling me to look the word up in the dictionary isn't going to change it's meaning.

I remember consistancy being a problem as far back as TNG but saying TOS is inconsistant with itself is irrelevant besides it wasn't. The new Star Trek movie was an FU to fans and departure from consistancy and that's fine with me but call a spade a spade. It's a rip off rebooted remake.

I remember consistancy being a problem as far back as TNG but saying TOS is inconsistant with itself is irrelevant besides it wasn't.

I made a brief list a few pages ago. The original series contradicts itself and changes premises. Fact. You can rationalize it all you want, but if TOS can fit into the same continuity, then ENT, TAS, TNG, DS9 and STXI's Old Spock and timeline divergence point can all be part of one huge one.
You can't ignore the mistakes in TOS but not similar ones in STXI, reguardless of whether you thought the film was any good or not.

Confused how? What you wrote is your opinion, since it's not shared by the people who made the film. Being condescending by telling me to look the word up in the dictionary isn't going to change it's meaning.

It doesn't matter what the people who made the film think. Nor what you nor I think. The film is irrelevant to TOS. TOS was complete in 1969. This is fact.

It's similar to what happens when a book is later made into a movie. Even if it deviates grossly from the book, the movie does not change the book.

Spock Prime came from the TOS universe; the movie is connected to the TOS universe and is not a "clean reboot." The assertions otherwise here are not based on "on-screen evidence" but on narrow, subjective interpretations of details in the movie being wedged to fit into a preconceived, preferred conclusion.

Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...

Re: Where did Spock go?

Warped9 wrote:

My beef ISN'T that the film contradicts established TOS continuity. Hell, it's a freaking reboot--it isn't beholden to established continuity.

My major beef is I think it's a bad and stupid movie. My second beef is that it's argued to be the original continuity altered (which it plainly isn't) and the insistence that the older nuSpock is from the original timeline/universe whatever. He plainly isn't.

Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...

Re: Where did Spock go?

Dennis wrote:

Spock Prime came from the TOS universe; the movie is connected to the TOS universe and is not a "clean reboot." The assertions otherwise here are not based on "on-screen evidence" but on narrow, subjective interpretations of details in the movie being wedged to fit into a preconceived, preferred conclusion.